Bradley v. Kloppenburg

Just about everything about Tuesday’s primary election for state Supreme Court was small.

The election, which narrowed the field from three to two candidates, was a low-key affair. The candidates barely interacted with each other; they had just a few joint appearances and no traditional debates. Turnout was low — about 565,000 people, in a state with 4.4 million eligible and 3.4 million registered voters.

Justice Rebecca Bradley and Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, the two victors, said little about how they would do the job, proclaiming their commitment to impartiality — which is not what some of their most ardent supporters believe about them, or want. Milwaukee County Judge Joe Donald, who had billed himself as “the candidate in the middle,” was eliminated.

Donald’s campaign manager had predicted Bradley would get 55% to 60% of Tuesday’s vote, leaving his candidate and Kloppenburg vying for the rest. In fact, the two did much better, with Kloppenburg getting 43% to Donald’s 12%. That left Bradley with 45%.

Bradley, 44, was appointed to the Supreme Court last October by Gov. Scott Walker, the third time in as many years he tapped her for an open seat. She is seen as the fifth conservative on the seven-member court, and her election to a 10-year term would ensure conservative control of the court for years to come.

Kloppenburg, 62, narrowly lost her bid for the Supreme Court in 2011, in a race polarized by the battle over Gov. Scott Walker’s undermining of public employee unions. She was elected to an appeals court the following year.

The stakes in the April 5 general election are anything but small. Court cases dealing with a huge range of issues — from police powers, to landowners’ rights, to the ability to sue companies that cause injury — are often decided along ideological lines. That makes state Supreme Court elections worth fighting for.

“Since I’m a lawyer, I really see how each of those votes can make a difference,” said Madison lawyer Marilyn Townsend, at Kloppenburg’s small election night party in Madison on Tuesday night. She thinks Kloppenburg showed “grace under pressure” in the 2011 race, which went to a recount, and believes she will decide cases impartially. On the other hand, “I’m very concerned that Gov. Walker’s nominee will not display that kind of demeanor, based on what she’s said and written.”

Bradley can expect major backing from ideological conservatives. One group, the Wisconsin Alliance for Reform, has already aired $1 million worth of campaign ads on her behalf, using footage she thoughtfully posted on her campaign website — a nifty way to get around her pledge to not coordinate. The group, like Bradley herself, has significant ties to state Republicans.

Kloppenburg likes to highlight these connections, as in her speech Tuesday, where she framed the election as being about the future of the court and state. “Who will call the shots?” she asked. “Unregulated special interests or the people of Wisconsin?”

But to win the election, given Bradley’s base of support, Kloppenburg will almost certainly need help from outside interest groups that back liberals, like the Greater Wisconsin Committee, which has pumped millions into prior state Supreme Court races.

That’s more than a little ironic.

As in other recent Supreme Court elections, spending by interest groups will likely dwarf that by the candidates and their campaigns. But a look at candidate finances is still instructive.

Both Bradley and Kloppenburg each raised a little more than $300,000 as of the last reporting period, but Bradley spent a great deal more: about $213,000 to Kloppenburg’s $74,000, campaign disclosure reports show. Kloppenburg was left with a lotmore cash on hand, $269,000 to $107,000

Why would Bradley be more willing to spend down her reserves? Maybe it’s because she knows there’s more money to be had. Her campaign has already spent nearly $50,000 on direct mail, a key way to raise more money. Kloppenburg’s reported direct-mail spending: $0.